This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

View Poll Results: Can a person be anti Gay marriage and not be a bigot?

The study was done by Brown, Northwestern and Princeton unniversities and the NSF. It's as credible as you get. I just post that jobbankusa URL instead because it gives a brief summary instead of the 28 pages of the whole study.

Re: Can a person be against Gay Marriage and not be a bigot?

The study was done by Brown, Northwestern and Princeton unniversities and the NSF. It's as credible as you get. I just post that jobbankusa URL instead because it gives a brief summary instead of the 28 pages of the whole study.

Do it have in there the statistics or percentages of how many people, and of each race, apply for said jobs? I have this nagging feeling that they're playing the results to fit the agenda. But so far it looks legit.

Re: Can a person be against Gay Marriage and not be a bigot?

Originally Posted by EpicDude86

Do it have in there the statistics or percentages of how many people, and of each race, apply for said jobs? I have this nagging feeling that they're playing the results to fit the agenda. But so far it looks legit.

They have two black people and two white people apply for each job. They actually did the entire test twice. First in the Milwauke metro area, where they had every applicant apply for the same 350 jobs. Then they repeated the experiment in the New York metro area with different teams a year later. That time they applied for 341 jobs each. They got basically the same results both times. In the NY metro area white applicants were around 2.15 times more likely to get the interview and in the Milwauke metro area 2.5 times more likely.

Re: Can a person be against Gay Marriage and not be a bigot?

Originally Posted by teamosil

They have two black people and two white people apply for each job. They actually did the entire test twice. First in the Milwauke metro area, where they had every applicant apply for the same 350 jobs. Then they repeated the experiment in the New York metro area with different teams a year later. That time they applied for 341 jobs each. They got basically the same results both times. In the NY metro area white applicants were around 2.15 times more likely to get the interview and in the Milwauke metro area 2.5 times more likely.

Hmm. That's pretty weird. Though I'd like to see this study conducted in the South. Also, What were the interviewer's races? Where were the stores located? etc. There are so many variables I'd love to see addressed. Don't get me wrong though, this is interesting as heck, but it doesn't prove racism. It doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that it might be racism, because we don't know the exact reason why this ratio exists. That's why I need more DATA!

Re: Can a person be against Gay Marriage and not be a bigot?

Originally Posted by Dav

Yes, it is.

The main argument of same-sex marriage being a Constitutional right is that it violates the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment. But gays do have equal protection under the law. Defining marriage as something that is only between a man and a woman doesn't exclude gays from the process, it just doesn't allow anyone to marry someone of the same sex. Now, in Loving vs. Virginia, the case was made that defining marriage based on race violated equal protection, but it would be very hard to make the same argument for defining marriage based on gender. Intent matters when interpreting the Constitution, and whoever wrote the 14th Amendment likely didn't even think of gay marriage as plausible, since the very idea itself is a new one.

Apparently, there have actually been cases brought to court on this issue, and they've all been rejected:

An essence of being gay is to share deep emotions and life with a person of the same sex, so legally allowing a gay person to marry (the expression of that emotion) a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Loving v. Virginia struck down similar arguments. The Court typically uses strict scrutiny to deal with issues of race, which probably would not be used on gay issues, but it could still pass same-sex marriage by way of rational basis (used in past cases involving gay rights) or even intermediate scrutiny (not as likely).

The intent of the 14th Amendment was to prevent the States from denying people their rights under the Constitution. It makes no mention of race, regardless of being a catalyst to its creation. As a matter of fact, the framers of the 14th Amendment had the opportunity to include race in it, but they chose not to.

"On December 5, 1865, Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, another prominent Radical Republican, proposed a constitutional amendment declaring, 'All national and state laws shall be equally applicable to every citizen, and no discrimination shall be made on account of race and color.'"

As we know, that Amendment was not passed but the more broad version was. It provides for all citizens to receive Equal Protection.

If Congress, at the time, meant for the 14th Amendment to be strictly used for race issues only, why was it not passed that way?

Re: Can a person be against Gay Marriage and not be a bigot?

Originally Posted by Alex

An essence of being gay is to share deep emotions and life with a person of the same sex, so legally allowing a gay person to marry (the expression of that emotion) a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Loving v. Virginia struck down similar arguments. The Court typically uses strict scrutiny to deal with issues of race, which probably would not be used on gay issues, but it could still pass same-sex marriage by way of rational basis (used in past cases involving gay rights) or even intermediate scrutiny (not as likely).

The intent of the 14th Amendment was to prevent the States from denying people their rights under the Constitution. It makes no mention of race, regardless of being a catalyst to its creation. As a matter of fact, the framers of the 14th Amendment had the opportunity to include race in it, but they chose not to.

"On December 5, 1865, Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, another prominent Radical Republican, proposed a constitutional amendment declaring, 'All national and state laws shall be equally applicable to every citizen, and no discrimination shall be made on account of race and color.'"

As we know, that Amendment was not passed but the more broad version was. It provides for all citizens to receive Equal Protection.

If Congress, at the time, meant for the 14th Amendment to be strictly used for race issues only, why was it not passed that way?

Re: Can a person be against Gay Marriage and not be a bigot?

Originally Posted by EpicDude86

Hmm. That's pretty weird. Though I'd like to see this study conducted in the South. Also, What were the interviewer's races? Where were the stores located? etc. There are so many variables I'd love to see addressed. Don't get me wrong though, this is interesting as heck, but it doesn't prove racism. It doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that it might be racism, because we don't know the exact reason why this ratio exists. That's why I need more DATA!

That second link I posted is 28 pages of data. It goes into a lot of detail. It's pretty damn convincing. I've posted this study a bunch of times on my other board, and so far, every potential concern anybody raised with the methodology has been addressed in the study. For example, they even did things like measured how frequently the applicants made eye contact and made sure to choose teams that matched exactly even on tiny things like that, they ensured that they dressed almost identically, they exactly scripted what the applicants would say, if anything, when they dropped off the resumes, the picked applicants with typically professional conservative looks, etc. They even found that if the white applicants indicated on their applications that they spent 18 monts in prison for cocaine distribution and the black applicants reported that they had no criminal record, the white applicants were still more likely to get the interviews.

The only thing that differs between the applicants is their race, so a massive difference like that in how often they get interviews can't really be explained by anything other than racism.

Hiring is very subjective. I've been hiring people for about 10 years and the truth is that a large part of the decision process is based on gut feelings about which applicant would be better for the job. For low end jobs like the ones in the study it's even more subjective because the qualifications aren't really so important, so they're left relying even more heavily on gut instincts. At that level unconscious racism would definitely be a huge factor. Maybe the person hiring doesn't think they're deciding who to interview on the basis of race at all. Maybe they even consider themselves to be strongly against racism. But then they just see the applicants and get a gut instinct that the white applicant is more professional or trustworthy or who knows what. So, I wouldn't guess that it is consciously malicious racism, but it's definitely racism nonetheless.

Re: Can a person be against Gay Marriage and not be a bigot?

Originally Posted by teamosil

That second link I posted is 28 pages of data. It goes into a lot of detail. It's pretty damn convincing. I've posted this study a bunch of times on my other board, and so far, every potential concern anybody raised with the methodology has been addressed in the study. For example, they even did things like measured how frequently the applicants made eye contact and made sure to choose teams that matched exactly even on tiny things like that, they ensured that they dressed almost identically, they exactly scripted what the applicants would say, if anything, when they dropped off the resumes, the picked applicants with typically professional conservative looks, etc. They even found that if the white applicants indicated on their applications that they spent 18 monts in prison for cocaine distribution and the black applicants reported that they had no criminal record, the white applicants were still more likely to get the interviews.

The only thing that differs between the applicants is their race, so a massive difference like that in how often they get interviews can't really be explained by anything other than racism.

Hiring is very subjective. I've been hiring people for about 10 years and the truth is that a large part of the decision process is based on gut feelings about which applicant would be better for the job. For low end jobs like the ones in the study it's even more subjective because the qualifications aren't really so important, so they're left relying even more heavily on gut instincts. At that level unconscious racism would definitely be a huge factor. Maybe the person hiring doesn't think they're deciding who to interview on the basis of race at all. Maybe they even consider themselves to be strongly against racism. But then they just see the applicants and get a gut instinct that the white applicant is more professional or trustworthy or who knows what. So, I wouldn't guess that it is consciously malicious racism, but it's definitely racism nonetheless.

"but it's definitely racism nonetheless" I still think we're not using the right word here. It might be subconscious PREJUDICE but really, you'd be hard pressed to find a logical human being who honestly thinks the color of one's skin makes them any better or crappier than someone else.

Re: Can a person be against Gay Marriage and not be a bigot?

Originally Posted by EpicDude86

There are very, very, very few real racists left in america. Prejudice is the new Racist, and if we look at definitions of these words (Go back a couple decades when they weren't all blanket terms) you'll see there's a difference. Point is, we need to address issues and ignore name callers/name calling entirely. We're not children are we? (Hard glare at Joe Wilson and Alan Grayson)

If someone says something prejudiced like: "Black folks sho' does love them that fried chickins" then be like, well Empirical evidence proves that while the average majority percentage of workers at KFC is African American, the consumption of friend chicken in these United States is performed by an 40% white, 40% black, some Mexicans, and a few Canucks.

What if someone's perception was "black people are lazy good-for-nothings that need to get off welfare and actually raise their kids to not be thugs... sure not all black people are like that, but most are, and that's the perception I have until proven otherwise"? I think what's happened to racism in America is that it has gone from being an overt, political thing to being something more subtle. People form generalized opinions, but justify it to themselves, or fail to see that they hold that opinion. It's never going to magically go away, especially in such a short time frame.

The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

Re: Can a person be against Gay Marriage and not be a bigot?

Originally Posted by the makeout hobo

What if someone's perception was "black people are lazy good-for-nothings that need to get off welfare and actually raise their kids to not be thugs... sure not all black people are like that, but most are, and that's the perception I have until proven otherwise"? I think what's happened to racism in America is that it has gone from being an overt, political thing to being something more subtle. People form generalized opinions, but justify it to themselves, or fail to see that they hold that opinion. It's never going to magically go away, especially in such a short time frame.

alright, I'll rephrase.

Racism by its real definition, is dead. Discrimination on the grounds of Prejudice and Bigotry is alive and well and has taken up the banner of racism.